Absolutely, Jean.

 

My Porsche tech charged me 3 hrs for install and set up. He had the engine
dropped already (9hrs) so... 9hrs + 3hrs = 12hrs total labor.
I paid $2550.00 for the diff and $24.00 for diff ring gear bolt set #950.332.983.03. When I was inquiring about the Gaurd diff... compared to
other LSD available, here is the response from Chris Carroll @
Turbo Kraft, Scottsdale AZ. ( I like my Gaurd LSD)

The Guard LSD:

Heat treated 4340 Chromoly- far stronger than the Motorsport LSD
Fully adjustable w/ varying ramps and / or locking percentages
Limited-slip differentials provide lock-up on both acceleration and deceleration. The amount of lock-up on accel and decel can be adjusted by selection of the internal plate sequence. Lock-up on deceleration allows aggressive entry into a turn and late braking, reasons why all Pro race teams (that we are aware of) utilize LSDs, rather than TBDs

 

Then I will look for the data. Impact is about half a second in a 60-130mph of a 7+ seconds run, includes friction losses and weight differential. Long Gs will be available as well.

 

What exactly was done to that car from the time the AWD run was made to the time it was run on RWD.

 

Absolutely nothing other than removing all the 4WD components. Same exact car, weight (other than 4WD), driver, road and the temps were lower during the 4WD setup. I am not the least surprised of this outcome , not sure why there is questioning about it, you have weight savings and less friction. I also have a list of magazine tested Porsche cars in both configurations and results are consistent with the above findings as well.

 

I've been lurking in this thread and asking myself the same question. Of course you will be faster in a straight line without question. Less weight and less friction. The only thing that would possibly slow you down is if you weren't getting traction, which isn't really an issue with these cars.

 

Of course you're right. But amazingly, some people don't quite understand this simple concept.

 

Scott, I should have known you would be a moderator over here too.

Hello from a former M3 owner and possible future turbo owner...

 

1/2 a second? I'm sorry but that doesnt make sense that you would get 1/2 second. Still waiting on the data though, not that the results would be the same cross platform.

Because the 996 was the first AWD Porsche to employ the conditional 5% you wont hardly see 1/2 sec improvement from 5% being transfered to the rear wheels. You can use physics to figure out that much.

 

But you do agree that it would faster right?

Maybe only a tenth, maybe more, but still faster.

If not, then what would cause it to be slower (assuming that traction is not an issue)

 

HeavyChevy

I can share with you the data for the runs that I have if it is what you are looking for and it helps you, but if before I show you the data you have already made up your mind, I really have no intention to debate them or have to prove anything, I know what the reality is, I have had this conversion for 2 years now and I also have 3 other 2WD and 4WD Porsche cars and I know what is what, on the track and the street.

The 0.5 seconds is a bit too much maybe, part of it could be somewhat shifting related, but I will look for and at the data.

The 996 4WD system is like the 964 system from what I understand, those time savings in straight line acceleration were also there on the 964. The conditional 5% up to 40% is what the 993TT has.

Sorry if the above did not sound too friendly.

 

I agree that in theory it should be faster.

I have a hang up though, which is what I have been trying to explain to some of the folks around here. When I did a partial conversion, my car was DEFINITELY slower, by a good margin, something like that .5 second 60-130. I also rode in a car with the exact setup as mine (k-24, ecu, exhaust) and it felt slower as well.

I dont know the cause of it but..... I cannot figure out how 70 lbs and less drag (which is not aero dynamic) would make THAT big of a difference to not only catch my car up to where it previously was, but then surpass it.

And while I have debated this hot and heavy, the opPOSERS have not provided any clear data to show if in fact it is or by how much, so until I see some real data (from the same platform) I'm not buying it. I have prove, and have offered it to anyone to see, but some people can only provide incomplete physics equations to argue and no real data, and I wont accept B.S.


As noted in some threads, the 996 AWD isnt even really putting the claimed 40% to the front wheels, or at least it's hard to tell. I really think the power put to the front wheels is neglegeble and is not going to help in any form being transfered to the rear wheels. So then you have 70 lbs which isnt going to get you much either, but it will help.

As I have tried to explain to others, the Porsche has a unique problem, the weight over the rear wheels is OVERKILL, help with traction, but if traction is not an issue, then IT DOES NOT HELP WITH ACCELERATION, because the more weight over where the power delivery occurs, the harder it is to utilize that power, hence just PART of the reason rear engine is not used hardly any more, the best advantage is has is traction, it is a liability in every other aspect, including accleration (if seperated from traction). This is why I think the power is better used at the front wheels (however useless the small percentage may be, because there is some weight, but not overbearing weight.

 

Jean, I welcome subjective data and that is what I have asked for during this whole charade, but no one has provided any, and with all the RWD conversions I would think someone has some real data to back up all the yapping I see around here (once again not directed towards you) and that is all that I have asked for.

So then what happens is we compare data (not yapping) and see where the problem lies and then come to a conclusion. but I wont be swayed by half assed physics equations and garbage. So please do us all a favor and present some data, you seem to be more open minded and secure in your observations because you have real data and I look forward to seeing it.

 

HeavyChevy

I have total objectivity in this, I am not trying to prove anything right or wrong and just want to share info if it helps. I personally have been racing my car for 2 years in 2WD mode and never considered going back to 4WD. I don't have an LSD except when I was using my ex- sequential gearbox.

I have just read through some of the posts here on this thread and noticed that there was a heated debate. I have no interest in participating in it to be honest, so just let me make a couple of comments to know how to better approach it and whether I should.

-The data that I will post is not mine, it belongs to a Rennlist member who was kind enough to share it with me as part of our testing of different setups.
- Have you posted data showing that your car was slower in 2WD mode? If so, I would appreciate it if you can post the graph again for my own info as I have not seen them.
- I understand you did not get the benefits of weight reduction, so how can there be debate about the benefits of 2WD?
-If I post the two graphs that I have from the exact same car before and after but unfortunately they were made with Dbox and Ax22, not the same tool, will you disqualify the data? (just to avoid wasting time)

Thanks

 

Jean I understand your points and position and you dont have to worry about me getting out of order here. You will have to download traqview trial version from traqmate.com and I will send you laps with graphs, g's, grids, and actual lap with track maps so you can see the difference, when you have it, I will email you or p.m. the files to you. You are the first to really want to see the data, which speaks volumes to me as opposed to "you did something wrong" and jumping to conclusions, I dont mind being proved wrong but people that wont listen or at least TRY and see where I'm coming from get nowhere with me.


On a side note, unless you are going to strip everything in your car to make the lightest car possible, is it not feasible that you could lose the 70lbs elsewhere? Frankly at this point AWD is permanent on my car so I'd put in extra money to lose the weight elsewhere, hence making the weight advantage of no affect. It costs money to lose the weight there, there are other ways to spend money and lose it somewhere else.


I will resepect your data, but cannot call it law where the 996 TT is conserned:

#1 Different car, different platform, different AWD system though same concept.

#2 If it is .5 seconds as you mentioned before we both know that is not possible with the changes mentioned, at least not possible on the 996 TT. .5 seconds at 130 mph is a LONG WAY, to achieve from a drivetrain mod.

#3 LSD not present, so it had nothing to do with the results.


I would also need to know:

Total weight removed from car (to see if it is on par with the 996 TT).
Sequential installed before after or in between runs.



I hope you dont take this the wrong way but I am keen to discrepancies no matter what they are, at this point after what I have experienced I need solid evidence and while if I were driving a 993TT this may be it, I am not.